New York Times (NYT) writer Rossalyn Warren is calling for Facebook to censor pro-life news sites like Live Action News and Life News. In an opinion piece entitled, “Facebook Is Ignoring Anti-Abortion Fake News,” Warren failed to publish any credible research which would rebut a single story published by these two entities, but still thinks they need to be censored, based on her own personal bias.

The NYT describes Warren as a “journalist” but in this case, it is obvious that her pro-abortion bias has overruled everything else. Warren writes, “So far, Facebook and the public have focused almost solely on politics and Russian interference in the United States election. What they haven’t addressed is the vast amount of misinformation and evidenced stories about reproductive rights, science and health.”

To clarify, what Warren means by “reproductive rights” is abortion; what she means by “science and health” is not the truth about when life begins, when a preborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected, or any actual science about the development of the baby or the harm effects of abortion on women. No, that is conveniently ignored by pro-abortion apologists like Warren. Apparently, in an opinion piece, one doesn’t have to any present facts.

Rossalyn Warren wants to censor pro-life news (image: Twitter)

The only reasoning Warren offers for censoring pro-life outlets is the fact that Live Action recently ran a series of articles on the documentary film Hush, made by pro-choice filmmaker Punam Kumar Gill, who refused to blindly believe what she was told about the harmful effects of abortion; instead, the film documents her investigation of the claims about a link between abortion and breast cancer. Warren failed to dispute in any way the film’s research, which was heavily sourced.

To Warren, Gill’s research is “fake news” — yet Warren offers absolutely no proof whatsoever for her conclusion. Yet, ironically, in her piece, Warren criticizes a 2016 blog story on late-term abortions for “failing to cite any sources or studies.”

Warren believes pro-life news sites (already being censored by Twitter) should now be censored by Facebook because they are ideologically driven (as if her views are not):

However, the incentive for the people who write content for anti-abortion news sites and Facebook pages is ideological, not financial. Anti-abortion, anti-science content isn’t being written by spammers hoping to make money, but by ordinary people who are driven by religious or political beliefs. Their aim isn’t to profit from ads. It’s to convince readers of their viewpoint: that abortion is morally wrong….

Well, it’s hard not to view this as morally wrong, once you’ve seen it:

Warren’s use of the term “anti-abortion” is interesting, and reveals Warren’s own ideology herself — as does her Facebook page…

Here is Warren “lov[ing]” Polish women who strike against their country’s abortion ban:

Here is Warren sharing a post from ideologically driven Think Progress, a left-wing news site that is radically in support of abortion. Warren clearly takes the pro-abortion position. (No calls from Warren for Facebook to censor Think Progress, by the way.)

Rossalyn Warren shares ThinkProgress’ pro-abortion post

And finally, Warren seems to think “more people need to see” an image of a woman who supports the nation’s largest abortion corporation, Planned Parenthood.

Rossalyn Warren supporting Planned Parenthood (image: Facebook)

Warren, while failing to state her own pro-abortion bias, wants readers to think she is actually concerned about “fake news.” But she gives herself away when she explains why she thinks Facebook should censor pro-life speech. It’s because, as she says, pro-life sites “dominate the conversation about reproductive rights on Facebook” with what she calls “dodgy studies and scaremongering” which she believes is “drowning out people’s access to credible, researched reporting on abortion.”

“Credible, researched reporting” on abortion? Apparently only groups that agree with Warren are considered credible — groups that promote abortion and are absolutely ideologically driven (though they agree with her). If Warren is truly concerned about ideologically driven “fake news,” as she calls it, then surely she should urge Facebook to censor other ideologically driven sites like Media Matters (where her sources originate), Think Progress, Rewire, or Guttmacher — a former “special affiliate” to abortion corporation Planned Parenthood. If we’re going to censor ideologically driven outlets, we may be censoring almost everything.

Warren insists, “These [pro-life] sites produce vast amounts of misinformation,” she claims, while admitting she got her information from the pro-abortion site Media Matters. She complains (emphasis added), “… stories [from pro-life sources] often generate more engagement than the content produced by mainstream news organizations, said Sharon Kann, the program director for abortion rights and reproductive health at Media Matters, a watchdog group.”

While Warren railed against pro-life news sites for using (in her words) “thinly sourced stories,” she did exactly the same thing, using a claim from pro-abortion staff member Sharon Kann at Media Matters as “evidence” of her claims. According to Kann’s LinkedIn page, the Media Matters “researcher” volunteered for two abortion facilities: Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the Emma Goldman Clinic. So she’s hardly unbiased. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Warren.

Rossalyn Warren attacks pro-life news sites in NYT

As you can see, Warren omits the fact that the videos (and their claims) posted by Live Action were actually made by an independent filmmaker, not Live Action; she says none of this, deliberately misleading readers.

According to Kann (the abortion facility volunteer), “People on Facebook engage with anti-abortion content more than abortion-rights content at a “disproportionate rate…” And there’s Warren’s real problem.

In the minds of people like Warren and those at Media Matters, which openly admits it is a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,” you’re only credible if you hold a favorable view of abortion.

But Media Matters, founded by David Brock, described by Politico as “the self-described reformed right-wing hitman who became a key figure in Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign,” is not impartial. Brock openly supported Hillary Clinton for president and has been described as “a prominent strategist with a web of liberal groups.” His secret meetings have included representatives from several pro-abortion groups, such as “Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice.”

Rossalyn Warren (image: Twitter)

Brock’s strategy for defeating his foes includes pressuring Facebook and other social media outlets to “adjust its model to stem the flow of damaging fake news on its platform’s pages.” Brock’s document claims that “journalists” like Ms. Warren will “weaponize our research products to… take action against… the extremists seeking to manipulate it.”

Warren believes that you and I should not have a say in which news we choose to read. Instead, “credible articles about abortion” should only come from “reputable news outlets like the New York Times….” But the “credible” New York Times isn’t so credible. NYT, among other media outlets, reported (without question) Planned Parenthood’s deceptive claims that they would retrain staffers after they were caught offering assistance to an undercover actor posing as a sex trafficker.

It was Live Action News — not Ms. Warren or the NYT — which documented how a Planned Parenthood insider revealed that Planned Parenthood’s “retraining” never happened. And it was Live Action News which also documented how Planned Parenthood’s lied about contacting local authorities about suspected sex traffickers — while the NYT and other outlets never bothered to fact-check.

Warren’s claim that pro-life news receives a higher view rate is not sourced, but if it is true, the reason is simple: people are trending more pro-life, and Warren is bothered by that, so she and her allies resort to cries for censorship — not of their own, ideologically driven “fake news,” but of news they don’t agree with.

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Michael Harriot, commentator for The Root,recently claimed that being a Black pro-life woman and seeking the protection of innocent Black babies in the womb is “rare.” But is it?

Harriott was writing in response to an interaction between Rep. Steve Cohen (D – Tenn.) and Star Parker, a pro-life Black woman, in which Cohen called Parker “ignorant” after she pointed out the devastation that abortion has wrought in the Black community.

Dem Congressman calls Black women Star Parker “ignorant”

“Since Roe v. Wade was legalized 20 million humans have been killed inside the womb of Black women. And then, on Halloween, Planned Parenthood tweets out that Black women are safest if they abort their child rather than bring it to term,” Parker said during a hearing on the Heartbeat Bill.

Parker also exposed the eugenic beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a known eugenicist who once gave a speech before the Ku Klux Klan. She also compared the Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Black slaves in America were not citizens, to that of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the entire country (essentially declaring that preborn humans are not persons and have no standing as such under the law).

Watch the interaction below:

Shockingly, Michael Harriot, who is also Black, chose to criticize Parker for her comments rather than research her claims about Planned Parenthood’s eugenicist beginnings. Instead, Harriot discounted Parker and other Black pro-life women, claiming that they are “rare”:

Star Parker, founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and a community activist, was asked to testify before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Hold up, I think I made a mistake in that previous paragraph. What I meant to type was: Star Parker was asked to testify before the House subcommittee because she is one of the rare black female Republican anti-abortion-rights activists. (No, I will not use the GOP marketing phrase“pro-life.” Who’s not for people living?)

Harriot then echoed Rep. Cohen’s derogatory remarks, saying, “People were shocked to hear him go after a black woman publicly like this, but here is the thing: She is kinda ignorant, though.” (Side note: Imagine for one moment what would happen if Parker were pro-choice and… oh, I don’t know… a white Republican male had called her “ignorant.” Media and social media — and likely Harriot himself — would explode with outrage.)

But Harriot’s claim about the rarity of pro-life Black females is simply wrong. The following Black pro-life women (in both the past and the present) are worth noting (and they weren’t all Republicans, Mr. Harriot):

1) Dr. Mildred Jefferson was the first Black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and was co-founder of the National Right to Life Committee. She once stated:

I became a physician in order to help save lives. I am at once a physician, a citizen, and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow the concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live.

2) Fannie Lou Hamer was a civil rights activist who helped found the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. In 1964 she ran for Congress. Hamer was also a victim of eugenic sterilization, a program which Planned Parenthood’s founder (as well as those on her board) advocated.

Fannie Lou Hamer

Ethyl Payne quoted Hamer as calling abortion “black genocide,” writing in The Afro-American, “She was a delegate to the White House Conference on Food and Nutrition… there she spoke out strongly of abortion as a means of genocide of blacks….”

Journalist Samuel Yette also noted Mrs. Hamer’s views inThe Afro American – Apr 2, 1977, quoting her as saying, “It is still a society in which an injured man must show his ability to pay before getting hospital services,but his daughter or wife can be aborted or fed birth control pills, at public expense….” Yette then recounted how Hamer blasted conference organizers: “She responded with shock and outrage at the deception. “I didn’t come to talk about birth control,” she protested. “I came here to get some food to feed poor, hungry people. Where are they carrying on that kind of talk?”

A 1969 article published by the Free-Lance Star quotes Hamer as denouncing voluntary abortion as “legalized murder,” saying she “made it clear that she “regards it part of a comprehensive white man’s plot to exterminate the black population of the United States.”

Author Kay Mills quoted Hamer in her bookas being vehemently against abortion. “Once Black women were bought as slaves because they were good breeders,” Hamer said. “Now they talk about birth control and abortion for blacks. If they’d been talking that way when my mother was bearing children, I wouldn’t be here now.”

Elaine Riddick

3) Elaine Riddick is a staunch pro-life advocate and vocal critic of Planned Parenthood. She was a victim of eugenic sterilization who led a successful crusade in North Carolina to gain reparations for the men and women (mostly Black) who were forcefully sterilized.

That NC eugenics program was supported by Margaret Sanger’s financier, Clarence Gamble, a director of Sanger’s American Birth Control League (which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood).

In 1947, Gamble called for the expansion of North Carolina’s state sterilization program, saying that for every feeble minded person sterilized, 40 more were polluting and degrading the bloodlines of future generation with their defective genes.

Research from North Carolina’s Winston-Salem Journal reveals a long history of abuses in that state’s sterilization program — abuses that Gamble consistently glossed over. According to the Journal, “Gamble wanted sterilizations to increase rather than decrease, and increase they did.”

Riddick testified before the North Carolina State Legislature about her experience, tearfully saying, “They cut me open like I was a hog.” She told lawmakers that her only crime was being poor, Black, and from a bad home environment. Riddick’s horrific story was recounted in the documentary Maafa21, which chronicles the history of eugenics and the founding of Planned Parenthood:

4) Dr. Alveda King is theniece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., and Director of Civil Rights for the Unborn for Priests for Life:

5) LaVern Tolbert is a former Board member of Planned Parenthood who now opposes their agenda:

8) Judge Cheryl Allen is a Superior Court judge for the state of Pennsylvania. She has said, “Most people tend to believe that Planned Parenthood is in the African American Community to help, but they are not there to help, they are there to make abortion more accessible to black people….” (Source: Interview on His Place TV)

Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen

9) Rep. Mia Love is the firstBlack Republican female elected to the U.S. Congress from the state of Utah:

10)Barbara Howard is theFlorida State chairwoman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). She has stated,. “Recently, some black preachers finally came out not against abortion per se, but merely against the location of Planned Parenthood centers in black communities. It seems the murder of blacks is only a consideration for black preachers or other leaders when they are killed by white or Hispanic cops…. So who will stop the cold-blooded murder of millions of unborn black children?”

Barbara Howard

11) Rep. June Franklin (D-Iowa) is the only African American representative in the Iowa legislature, and said in 1971, “Proponents… have argued this bill is for blacks and the poor who want abortions and can’t afford one. This is the phoniest and most preposterous argument of all. Because I represent the inner-city where the majority of blacks and poor live and I challenge anyone here to show me a waiting line of either blacks or poor whites who are wanting an abortion.”

Rep. June Franklin (image Maafa21)

12) Dr Ashley Harrell of Black People Against Abortion:

13) Catherine Davis is a founding member of the National Black Prolife Coalition:

14) Dr. Freda M. Bush is anOBGYN and president of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health:

15) Obianuju Ekeocha, founder and president of Culture of Life Africa:

All the Black pro-life women from both political parties would make an exceedingly long list — and the truth is that the pro-abortion media makes little effort to highlight them.

Tragically, the real “ignorance” here is not found in those who denounce abortion’s impact on the Black community. It is found among members of the media who imply that Black pro-life women are “rare.” It just simply is not true.

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Despite media outrage on how the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) used undercover tactics to expose the way Planned Parenthood was selling aborted baby body parts, a journalist with a leading media outlet has used their own form of undercover videos to expose the “fundraising tactics of members of Congress” with little criticism. The piece published in April by 60 Minutes and anchored by correspondent Norah O’Donnell has been given a pass from the same media that slammed CMP for their secretly taped footage of high ranking Planned Parenthood officials bartering over the price of various body parts of children they had aborted.

In her 60 Minutes report, O’Donnell appears to be motivated by what she believes was a waste of taxpayer money and time after learning how members of Congress were allegedly pressured to spend 30 hours a week inside “call centers” to bring in funds for party leaders. O’Donnell and the 60 Minutes team set out to investigate the accusation. But, there was a snag in their plan, because the call centers were off limits to the public and their initial attempt to gain access was abruptly turned down.

Unable to find pictures or footage from inside the call centers, 60 Minutes asked to film in them, but the team was turned down. They decided to film inside one anyway. “If lawmakers who are paid by the American taxpayers are spending a majority of their time raising money on the phone, I think it’s an important part of our story to see what those offices look like and take our viewers behind the scenes, in this case, with a hidden camera,” O’Donnell says.

60 Minutes producer Pat Shevlin admitted on camera that they asked if they could go inside and shoot but were told “no.” She called the eventual decision to film undercover “justified” in this case, “We were pretty scrupulous about it. Everyone is worried about hidden camera. I mean it’s not something you take lightly when you do it,” she said bragging that the 60 Minutes team has a number of ways to “hide cameras.”

In all fairness to 60 Minutes, producer Shevlin claimed they could “never lie about who we are or why we are someplace” in order to conduct an undercover investigation. “If challenged you cannot give a false reason why you are there,” she added. As if hidden cameras after they were forbidden from access to the center is somehow truthful, but, we should take them at their word, right? Perhaps or perhaps not. Maybe instead, we could demand that 100% of the video footage the media outlet took be made public (like was demanded of CMP) so we can hear what was said for ourselves. Then it can be analyzed to determine if in fact, the footage is “unedited.” Perhaps local authorities could raid O’Donnell’s home, like has been done to CMP’s lead investigator David Daleiden in the chance that there was something untruthful or illegal on the way the media news magazine obtained their footage.

Now, I am not seeking to debate the topic exposed by 60 Minutes in their piece, but to show the complete hypocrisy the media has over the use of deceptive tactics by journalists when they expose Planned Parenthood instead of a Republican “call center” of sorts. And, I am not the only one to observe this hypocrisy. Leah Jessen over at the Daily Signal saw the contradiction in February when she contrasted the use of hidden cameras and deception between CMP with a 60 Minutes piece by correspondent Steven Kroft, writing:

Its investigation was designed to raise red flags for the lawyers by revealing an intent to move questionable funds in the United States through purchases and other ways that would be concealed from law enforcement, Global Witness officials told Kroft.

Of 16 lawyers secretly recorded by the undercover investigator, only one outright declined to participate. The others suggested ways to help move the funds without compromising the true source, Kroft reported.

It was a familiar scenario. Only so far no one appears to be calling for Global Witness to be punished for surreptitiously trying to expose unethical or illegal activity.

Screen grab of Salon Magazine says David Daleiden is not a journalist while running donate adds for Planned Parenthood

Last year, in a piece I penned for Live Action News, I published examples on the use of undercover video and hidden cameras used by journalists dating back years. And, I am not alone in my observations either. A 1996 editorial written by, Richard Harwood in the Star News described plenty of deceptive tactics used by journalists and detailed several by CBS, writing, “Leslie Stahl dons a black wig and poses as a prospective client to expose the practices of a Romanian adoption agency. Ed Bradley goes to China posing as a businessman in order to expose the abuse of prison labor. A sound man poses as a cancer patient to infiltrate a cancer clinic in California.”

CBS is not the only culprit in the use of deception to expose the greater good. NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” on Dateline raised concern of ethics after they in essence entrapped child sex predators to show up at the alleged home of children after they were enticed by fake online profiles. Other media giants are not innocent to deceptive tactics either. Bob Steele, of the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values criticized the way ABC used deceptive tactics to expose a grocery store chain for allegedly selling spoiled meat, writing:

Hidden cameras and any form of deception should be used judiciously and rarely. They should be reserved for those exceptional stories of great public interest involving great harm to individuals or system failure at the highest levels. Furthermore, deception and hidden cameras should be used only as a reporting tool of last resort, after all other approaches to obtaining the same vital information have been exhausted or appropriately ruled out. And, news organizations that choose to use deception and hidden cameras have an obligation to assure their work meets the highest professional standards.

It was a multi-million dollar lawsuit brought against ABC in the above case that caused many within the media to scale back their use of deception. But, that did not stop Washington editor of Harper’s Magazine Ken Silverstein, who described his reasons for his use of deception in a Los Angelas Times editorial:

“Yes, undercover reporting should be used sparingly, and there are legitimate arguments to be had about when it is fair or appropriate. But I’m confident my use of it in this case was legitimate. There was a significant public interest involved…”

Whether the end justifies the means or not, the truth is that when it comes to exposing Planned Parenthood, the main steam media regularly turns a blind eye to any unethical or illegal accusation against the abortion giant chain. While Planned Parenthood receives over half a billion in tax payer monies annually the media conveniently fails to question anything they do forcing citizen journalists like Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress among others to conduct the hard work of investigating for them. In all their talk about ethics in journalism, the media has forgotten the number one ethic: Seek Truth and Report It.

When an abortion activist was arrested for throwing a Molotov cocktail device at pro-lifers outside a Planned Parenthood, the media did not respond by labeling all pro-choice and reproductive rights activists as “extremists” or “domestic terrorists.”

Earlier this year, Melanie Maria Toney admitted to throwing the Molotov cocktail at pro-life people praying outside an Austin Planned Parenthood. She was not a peeping tom recluse living in a trailer in the boonies. In fact, she was an active supporter of abortion rights even testifying against restrictive abortion laws in Texas.

Her actions were blamed on her alone and were not used as a politically charged media slander of all abortion rights supporters. There have been several acts of violence directed at pro-lifers including the use of guns yet the media conveniently fails to report them.

However, when one lone gunman was arrested after a tragic shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood in November, which left three people dead and several others injured, the media went crazy labeling pro-life activists as “extremists” claiming their “rhetoric” somehow led to the shooting. This very untrue and irresponsible conduct is obviously motivated, not by truth, but by the abortion bias of many in the main stream media.

To show how bias they are, one need only look at how the media handled only a “few” of the violent or illegal actions of those in the abortion movement.

In February of 2015, an Arizona court rejected an appeal by an abortionist who was convicted of sexually abusing several patients in his Phoenix abortion clinic.

Abortion doctor Brian Finkel photo Life Dynamics Blog

Originally charges with 67 counts of sexual assault, abortionist Brian Finkel was sentenced in 2004 to nearly 35 years in prison and convicted of 22 counts sexual assault of his female abortion patients. Despite the fact that the convicted abortionist once did 20% of the state’s abortions, all abortion providers were never labeled rapists after Finkel’s convictions. (More on this violent case here)

In December of 2013, a California Planned Parenthood employee was arrested on a count of sexual battery, according to the Sacramento Police. Jorge Martin-Santana stood accused of inappropriately touched a patient while working as a medical assistant and the media was relatively silent.

Despite his arrest on these alleged charges, Planned Parenthood suffered no scorn from the MSM.

Kermit Gosnell arrested

When Philadelphia abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing three babies born alive and viable during abortion procedures, and was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman who died at his clinic during a procedure, the abortion industry referred to him as an anomaly and the media played along. In May of 2013, Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison leaving the abortion industry and all their supporters who turned a blind eye to the actions of Gosnell unscathed.

When police arrested Tony Ray Thornton, he was working as Planned Parenthood’s President and CEO of their Lubbock, Texas branch. In 2012, the 56 year-old Planned Parenthood CEO was arrested and accused of exposing his genitals in Mackenzie Park. Sgt. Jonathan Stewart, Lubbock Police Department spokesman, said he didn’t know whether children were in the area when Thornton was in the park or how many people were present. You can read the police report here.

Planned Parenthood CEO arrested for indecent exposure

But, no worries, because Planned Parenthood instantly distanced the organization from him and that was that. There was no call from the media to label all Planned Parenthood staffers perverts for the action of one employee.

In 2010, the doctor who performed an abortion on deceased patient Laura Hope Smith admitted that his actions led to her death while she was under his care. In addition to receiving a 6 month jail sentence for pleading guilty to the criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, 67 year-old abortion doctor Rapin Osathanondh settled a civil suit and agreed to pay $2 million to Smith’s parents. Smith was 13 weeks pregnant when she went to see Osathanondh for an abortion in his Cape Cod office. She was pronounced dead later that day. Prosecutors charged Osathanondh with manslaughter, alleging that he failed to monitor her while she was under anesthesia, delayed calling emergency services when her heart stopped, and later lied to try to cover up his actions. To date, no other abortion doctor has been labeled an “extremist” for the actions of this abortion doctor. (read more here).

In a 5-4 ruling in 2010, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the 20-year sentence of a Laurel abortionist for the 1997 murder of his wife. Malachy Dehenre was found guilty of manslaughter in January of 2008 for the shooting death of his wife Nayasha Dehenre.

Malachy DeHenre arrested for murder

According to the case, shortly after midnight on January 23, 1997, 911 operators dispatched Jones County deputies and paramedics to the home of Dr. Nyasha DeHenre (Nyasha). Nyasha’s ex-husband, Malachy, was standing outside when law enforcement officials and medical personnel arrived. He directed them into the home, where they found Nyasha lying on the couch with a book lying across her stomach, her feet propped up, and a bullet wound to her head. Nyasha died several days later.

Despite DeHenre’s cold and calculating actions, there was no call to label all abortion doctors extremist wife killers after his arrest and subsequent sentencing and appeal. Instead, Jones County Assistant District Attorney, J. Ronald Parrish called the abortionist, not the abortion movement a, “ despicable nasty person,” adding that he also killed abortion patients.

“He not only killed his wife, that what he was convicted for, but I think people need to know about him. He also killed, two other women during abortions. One in Alabama and one in Jackson, Mississippi, and according to him he preformed 30,000 abortions on unborn children,” he said.

But, wait there’s more…

In 2008, a former employee and abortionist for Planned Parenthood of the Columbia-Willamette in Oregon by the name of Dr. GEORGE ELLIOTT KABACY, M.D., was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for possession of child pornography. Dr. George Elliott Kabacy was actively practicing as an OBGYN in Washington State at the time of his arrest in December 2006. At the sentencing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Vince Lombardi said Kabacy “traded pictures of children being subjected to rape and degradation.”

Kabacy admitted in his plea agreement that he knowingly possessed more than 8,000 images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Although this pedophile was not practicing at the Planned Parenthood at the time of his arrest, the media did not label the entire organization in a negative way after his despicable illegal activities became public.

On December 11, 2001, the Oklahoman detailed the murder trial of abortionist John Baxter Hamilton. Hamilton performed abortions at the Oklahoma Clinic for Women in Oklahoma City, OK.

John Baxter Hamilton arrested for murdering his wife

Hamilton was found guilty in the Valentine’s Day killing of his wife, Susan Hamilton. Her nude body was found lying in blood in the master bathroom of the Hamilton’s Quail Creek home, her skull fractured and face disfigured. She had been choked with a necktie and beaten to death.

Although the media will tout the murder of abortion doctors, few seem to mention the murder conviction of this abortion doctor. They see this case as unrelated to the abortion movement and will never label them all as extremists or terrorists because of it. (More info on this brutal murder here.)

“I just drove and stopped, and I shot. He was still moving so I shot him one more time. I aimed under the ribcage going up toward the heart.”

Those are the words of convicted murderer Harlan Drake. Who did he shoot? Not a Planned Parenthood worker or an abortion doctor. No, Drake believed in abortion. His victim was a pro-life activist by the name of James Pouillon, who was holding a pro-life sign outside a school in Michigan when the pro-choice shooter aimed and fired his weapon, killing him instantly on September 11, 2009.

A witness testified in court that she saw Drake fire multiple shots at Pouillon who attempted to protect himself with his sign and used it to support himself before the shooter drove closer and fired again, she said. “The shots rang out again and he fell to the side and onto his front,” she said.

There were “bullet holes everywhere” in Pouillon’s body, she testified. “He was shot all the way around his body,” she said.

Authorities said that the “anti-abortion literature” which Pouillon passed out motivated Drake to shoot the pro-life man. The killer, Harlan Drake told police that the night before the shootings he intended to kill Pouillon if he saw him at the school the next day holding his pro-life sign.

“I just drove and stopped, and I shot,” Drake said during an interview recorded by police the day of the shootings. “He was still moving so I shot him one more time. I aimed under the ribcage going up toward the heart.”

“I figured if he was there, I’d make sure he wasn’t there (again)…”

The same day Drake fatally wounded James Pouillon in cold blood, he also murdered another man. At the time of his death, pro-life leaders called for authorities to treat Pouillon’s case the same way they treat acts of violence at abortion clinics.

A response by Planned Parenthood East Central Michigan president Lori Lamerand after Pouillon’s murder was published by a local media outlet, “If this is related to his pro-life views, we find that tragic and do not endorse such actions in any way, shape or form,” said Lamerand. Her attempt to denounce the killing was fully accepted by the media and there was no repeated frenzy to label the “rhetoric” of Planned Parenthood against “anti-abortion activists” as having a role in Pouillon’s tragic death.

Despite the murder of this pro-life activist, to date, no other abortion activists have been labeled “extremists” after this attack occurred.

It is difficult for the media which has been so admittedly pro-abortion to keep focus, so I will let them in on a little secret:

The recent lawsuit filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) against a pro-life group exposing a gruesome baby parts operation is nothing more than a Trojan Horse of distraction.

By now we have all seen those undercover videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) showing Planned Parenthood’s horrific baby parts harvesting operation.

As a result, late last month San Francisco Judge William Orrick granted the National Abortion Federation a temporary restraining writing that NAF would likely suffer irreparable injury absent a temporary restraining order.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asks that the Defendants be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from publishing or otherwise disclosing any recordings or confidential information from NAF annual meetings, publishing or otherwise disclosing the names or addresses of any NAF members that they learned at NAF annual meetings, and attempting to gain access to any future NAF meetings.

“NAF meetings are one of the only places where abortion providers can come together to learn about the latest research and advances in their field, and network without fear of harassment or intimidation. Many of the attendees are high-profile targets of anti-abortion extremists,” NAF stated in the press release.

FAKE COMPANY

In their lawsuit, NAF claims that CMP created a “fake company” to expose the Planned Parenthood scheme, writing:

Defendants The Center for Medical Progress (“CMP”), David Daleiden, Troy Newman and individuals acting in concert with them conspired to defraud and did defraud NAF by setting up a fake company (Defendant “Biomax Procurement Services”), which held itself out as a legitimate fetal tissue procurement organization. Daleiden and his cohorts pretended to be officers and employees of their fake company, Biomax Procurement Services. They assumed false identities, used fake driver’s licenses and approached NAF in order to gain access to its annual meetings. Using their fake names and identities, they signed agreements with NAF, agreements designed to protect NAF members from exactly the type of anti-abortion harassment that is the subject of this lawsuit…

Yet, this is just the sort of thing that whistle blowers and investigators do all the time as this 20/20 episode below proves:

As for the use of undercover video, we all know this tactic has been used by journalists for years.

This 20/20 investigation on “Repair Shop Fraud” where a reporter did not “use his real name” is just one example.

There are literally hundreds of these “investigations” out there.

HIDDEN CAMERAS

The NAF lawsuit against the pro-life group also lists CMP’s use of video as a cause to censor their message further:

In order to gain access to NAF’s annual meetings, they then signed agreements with NAF promising not to record video or audio tape, to only use information learned at NAF’s national meetings to enhance the quality and safety of services provided by NAF members, and not to disclose any information learned at NAF’s annual meetings to any third parties. All of these promises were false and fraudulent when they were made.

Undercover video and hidden cameras are used by the media all the time to produce reports and investigations.

Just one example is this CBS affiliate who went “undercover” inside several Los Angelas restaurants:

Lest you think the tactic of video in undercover investigations is only reserved for law enforcement or journalists, they are not.

In fact, several mission driven non-profits have used under cover investigations to make their case.

As one example, prominent on the Humane Society website is an undercover video exposing the mistreatment of pigs.

The non-profit praises the effort describing it this way:

A video from an undercover investigation of a pig factory farm earned both a 2013 Webby People’s Voice Award and a Webby Winner Award. The video, called “Undercover at a Tyson Pig Supplier,” was shot in April 2012 at Wyoming Premium Farms, a pig factory farm in Wheatland, Wyo. that at the time of the investigation was supplying pigs to meat giant Tyson Foods. It shows workers kicking living piglets like soccer balls, swinging sick piglets in circles by their hind legs, striking mother pigs with their fists and repeatedly and forcefully kicking them as they resisted leaving their young. As a result of the exposé, five Wyoming Premium workers recently pleaded guilty to criminal animal cruelty.

NARAL Pro-Choice California sent women undercover over the past year to more than a quarter of the state’s 167 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), gathering information on the quality and kind of services offered by the anti-choice groups that run those facilities, in addition to the experience a person might have using a CPC as a resource during a pregnancy.

A report conducted by, Vice News revealed that a committed abortion advocate running a project whose sole purpose is to take down pro-life pregnancy centers, recorded conversations with pro-life counselors using hidden cameras.

Katie Stack, who founded The Crisis Project admitted to Vice News that she uses hidden cameras to film the counseling and admitted to using “fake pee” so the counselors would think she was pregnant.

In October 2011, rather then condemn Stack’s undercover vids as “fake” she was published in the New York Times op-ed section for her critique of crisis pregnancy centers, “When I Needed Help, I Got Propaganda.”

Like CMP’s David Daleiden, Stack is also a young person in her twenties. However, because she was attacking the pro-life effort to help women, her undercover “investigation” was praised by the media.

But, as I have stated, the use of hidden cameras for undercover investigations is nothing new. A simple search on “Hidden Camera Investigations” on youtube will prove the tactic is universally used.

FAKE NAMES

NAF also accused CMP investigator’s of using fake names….but…that is also a Trojan Horse when you understand that this tactic is used to expose any number of illegal or unethical actions.

As an aside, The Daily Caller once blogged about the use of fake names by reporters generally ( read here.)

When a French female journalist went undercover to find out why teens were flocking to ISIS by setting up a fake Facebook account and a fake name and persona, CBS praised the effort.

In 1963, Steinem went undercover as a Playboy Bunny to experience a bunny’s life in Hugh Hefner’s New York Playboy mansion.

She wrote about her experiences in Show Magazine in an article entitled, “A Bunny’s Tale.”

“I’ve decided to call myself Marie Catherine Ochs,” Steinem writes in the story, adding, “I’ve spent the afternoon making up a background for Marie.”

INFILTRATE

Aborted babies from CMP Planned Parenthood vid

The NAF lawsuit against CMP complains that the cunning undercover investigators were able to “infiltrate” their “secret” meetings, writing:

Defendants Daleiden, Newman, CMP, and others associated with the Enterprise, and were willing participants in it. Each had a common purpose and interest in the establishment and operations of the scheme. They also agreed to the manner in which the Enterprise would be conducted, i.e., as evidenced by Daleiden’s own statements, the creation of an admittedly fake company (Biomax Procurement Services) in order to infiltrate by false and fraudulent pretenses NAF’s annual meetings, and to infiltrate the offices and clinics of its constituent members, all for the purposes of portraying NAF and its constituent members in a false light, destroying their professional repuations, and placing NAF members in personal jeopardy. At all relevant times, Daleiden, CMP, Biomax and Newman were generally aware of each other’s conduct in furtherance of the scheme, and were knowing and willing participants in that conduct.

Yet infiltration is also a part of American investigations.

Stetson Kennedy, who wrote an exposé detailing his infiltration of the Klan called, “I Rode With the Ku Klux Klan,” was noted as a “folklorist and social crusader” by the New York Times upon his death.

“After being rejected by the Army because of a bad back, he threw himself into unmasking the Ku Klux Klan as well as the Columbians, a Georgia neo-Nazi group. He was inspired in part by a tale told by an interview subject whose friend had been the victim of a racial murder in Key West,” the New York Times writes.

Last year an international media outlet reported how a retired black police officer was able infiltrate a branch of the Klu Klux Klan in Colorado.

Ron Stallworth was an investigator for the Colorado Springs Police Department in 1979 when he answered a newspaper ad placed by a new KKK group, who were looking for local members.

Writing about the experience in a new book, Black Klansman, Stallworth explains how the hate group not only made him a member, but voted to make him the chapter’s leader after only one year.

‘So they took a vote, they took a unanimous vote and they wanted Ron Stallworth to become the leader of the Ku Klux Klan chapter because he was quote loyal and a dedicated Klansman,” Stallowrth told Salt Lake City’s ABC 4.

Earlier this year, Business Insider reported the way one filmmaker infiltrated the Church of Scientology, writing:

Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney (“Taxi to the Dark Side,” “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”) remembers how he reacted the first time he was offered the chance to do a film on the Church of Scientology.

“I turned it down,” he told Business Insider…

Gibney’s approach to secrecy came from his talks with Wright, who used similar methods when he interviewed former church members for his book. “I often used throw-away phones and encrypted email,” he said. “People were so frightened.”

The film was not condemned by the left and even premiered at the Sundance Film Festival.

Interestingly, after the Church of Scientology attempted to discredit his investigation Gibney responded, “They are playing a PR game with them to say, ‘Look at these evil people who are attacking us. Look how valiantly we are trying to defend our organization,‘” he said.

Sound familiar?

As much as the media is crying foul when CMP exposes Planned Parenthood, they remained relatively quiet when the left leaning PETA organization infiltrated a KFC supplier using those infamous undercover videos and posing as a worker for the chicken factory.

A look at NAF’s requirements for becoming a member reveals that the “infiltration” issue is more a culpability on their part than on CMP.

The abortion lobby group promises members:

Because NAF and our members have been the targets of anti-abortion activity, our application asks for references. Specifically, we ask for references from current NAF members or from other people or institutions known to us. If you have difficulty with this requirement, please call the NAF membership office at 202-667-5881.

Did NAF ask for references or did they allow the pro-life undercover operatives into their inner circle with no or little scrutiny? Whichever is the case, NAF’s first and foremost concern must be their own multi-million dollar pockets. If the CMP vids are released as they should be, the one who should be sued here by anyone who attended their conference is the National Abortion Federation in my view.

But, it’s not just their attendees that are a concern to NAF.

The organization which touts the highest standards for abortion care happens to have as their members the same Planned Parenthood centers now under investigation for possible illegal activity.

A breakdown of each Planned Parenthood exposed by CMP and their ties to NAF are listed below:

The first CMP video released featured the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada.

Not only was the Denver affiliate of PPRM listed as a NAF Member but so were several others:

In Center for Medical Progress’ first video Dr. Deborah Nucatola head of Planned Parenthood’s medical services department bragged how she would crush above or crush below the desired unborn child’s organ to appease “buyers” of the fetal body parts.

Planned Parenthood’s Medical Directors’ Council President Mary Gatter described on tape how she would modify the abortion procedure, performing a “Less Crunchy” technique to obtain more “whole specimens.” Gatter then joked about wanting a Lamborghini. In that second video, Gatter was also caught haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

Both Gatter and Nucatola are referenced in NAF guidelines on abortion ( read here.)

The fifth undercover video in the controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact fetuses.

NAF, with all their talk about high standards, is spending far more time attacking the Center for Medical Progress than investigating the allegations of illegal activity by Planned Parenthood.

Although NAF supports the use of aborted babies for research they claim to require their members to obey all laws regarding their procurement as well as forbidding any monetary compensation, something Planned Parenthood is being accused of doing.

NAF says they support fetal tissue donation as long as Federal laws and regulations are observed and according to NAF:

I.Informed consent for fetal tissue donation may not be obtained until after a patient has given full informed consent for the abortion.
II.A woman’s decision to donate fetal tissue must be voluntary and uncoerced.Providers must not offer any financial or other incentives to the patient.
III.Clinics and providers cannot financially gain from their participation in fetal tissue donation. Remuneration is limited to “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of fetal tissue” (NIH Revitalization Act of 1993).
IV.Providers cannot change abortion procedures specifically to accommodate fetal tissue collection needs.

The American Medical Association also states that no financial benefit should be granted to those who abort the child whose tissue is later donated for research.

It’s time to stop focusing on NAF’s Trojan Horse and start asking why the organization which allegedly creates guidelines and standards for the abortion industry isn’t saying more to condemn Planned Parenthood!

Former abortion clinic worker turned ardent pro-life human rights advocate, Jewels Green wrote an interesting piece on this entire scam as well, where she points out that:

NAF is suing under the Federal Civil RICO statute, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and various state statutes.

Mcelhinney said that after their research the only thing she can compare Gosnell to is Auschwitz and the Nazi Holocaust.

“Words really fail to describe what Kermit Gosnell did. I mean, language really starts to fail..And, as I’ve worked on it, the only comparison that worked for me at all is Auschwitz,” Mcelhinney told Crowder.

“It’s the only thing – the Holocaust is all I could compare it to. Because…one thing that was said in Auschwitz that I think was amazing, and somebody said ‘Where was God in Auschwitz?’ And a Rabbi said, ‘it’s the wrong question – the question is – where was humanity?’ And, I found that really helpful with Gosnell because dealing with the people – all of the people who knew what was going on….and did nothing. And you have to ask yourself: Where was humanity?” she said.

Mcelhinney said that she was shocked when she read Gosnell’s assistant, Stephen Massof’s testimony where he said they ran around with scissors and the “blood ran down the walls.”

But, Mcelhinney says that if the public thinks that what Gosnell did was disgusting, “then why is it that you don’t think it’s disgusting when it happens inside of the woman? Because, by the way, it is completely legal what he did- if he had done it in the womb.”

Mcelhinney has admitted that before she investigated the Gosnell clinic she was not outspoken against abortion. Now, she is passionate.

If the public could see what really goes on, would they speak out? That is the one million dollar question.

Christianity Today has just released an article praising the birth control efforts of Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood.

Guest author, Rachel Marie Stone, penned the “Contraception Saves Lives“, article, where she describes the piece as, “Reconsidering Margaret Sanger as one who was opposed to abortion but emphatic about the personal and social good of contraception.”

Despite the sickening character of Margaret Sanger as a proponent of eugenics which Stone admits to, she attempts to paint the Planned Parenthood founder as compassionate towards women who suffered in child birth, writing of one case:

The young nurse had been called to the apartment of Sadie Sachs, a poor woman who was extremely ill after attempting to perform an abortion on herself. Sadie begged the doctor to tell her how she might avoid future pregnancies.

He suggested, coldly, that Sadie — a young married woman — abstain from sex entirely.

Not long after, the young nurse was again summoned to Sadie Sachs’ apartment, where the same scenario was unfolding. This time, though, Sadie died from her attempt to abort her unborn child.

The young nurse — whose name was Margaret Sanger — threw her medical bag across the room in fury and vowed that she could not go on nursing until she had helped to make effective birth control widely available to working class and poor women.

When asked to write the piece, Stone said this, “I wasn’t sure how to reply; Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, which, contrary to what Sanger would have wished, is today the largest provider of abortions in the United States. As it happens, Planned Parenthood did not, in Sanger’s day, provide abortions. Sanger herself opposed abortion, saying that “no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.” But Sanger, like many medical professionals in her day, did hold eugenicist ideas. Eugenics were enshrined into compulsory sterilization laws in many U.S. states and supported by organizations like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. I do not mean to excuse Sanger for holding these views, but I do want to give the charge of “eugenicist” a more complete background.”

Let’s pause for one clarification, if Ms. Stone was not defending Margaret Sanger in her Christianity Today piece, why did she send out this tweet saying, “I am @amyjuliabecker ‘s blog today, defending #MargaretSanger and talking about how #birthcontrol saves lives. http://ow.ly/Kc2qr&#8221;

After taking some heat, Stone back tracked slightly:

It is true that Sanger opposed abortions as I detail here, however, what Stone leaves out is that she had a more permanent solution to abortion, forced sterilization.

By sterilizing Black women and those she and her eugenics friends considered feeble-minded, Sanger could guarantee they would never become pregnant again.

In Margaret Sanger’s, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Sanger states clearly that eugenics, the ideology Stone denounces is not complete without birth control , “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.

Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like.

We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in thesterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit…“

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘, to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

In an interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger called the bringing of these “unfit” children, created by God in the womb, into the world a sin:

Just who was Sanger directing her Birth Control Pill advocacy towards? Her description is below

“I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people,” Sanger wrote in 1950, “Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”

To further complicate Stone’s assumption of Sanger as a purveyor of “social good” the Planned Parenthood founder was also a racist:

This is what Sanger wrote in her autobiography, “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Source: Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366 and Maafa21. )

In her article, Stone makes a reference to Government funded birth control in ObamaCare accusing those who opposed it of labeling women, promiscuous or lazy or selfish, unwilling to host a blessing from the Lord:

“A woman’s desire for birth control is, even today, regarded suspiciously, as was seen in public discussions around the birth control provisions of the Affordable Care Act — as if women desiring birth control were promiscuous or lazy or selfish, unwilling to host a blessing from the Lord, which children certainly are. But those of us who live privileged lives — relative to the urban poor of a hundred years ago, and relative to the millions of women in the majority world — are not always able to appreciate what access to birth control meant, and means, in these times and places,” Stone writes.

Well, Ms. Stone, are you not aware that many chemicals now labeled contraceptive are, in fact, abortive and that is one of the main oppositions to the government mandate?

But, since Ms. Stone is interested in Margaret Sanger’s view on all of this, allow me to give it.

In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same.

“I just don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control,” Sanger stated.

If Stone wants to advocate for contraception, that is one thing, but for her to try and convince the world that Sanger’s motives were compassionate, that is a completely different story.

Rather, an Internet maelstrom of comments on Stone’s original post and hundreds of tweets ensued, all in response to the way Stone depicted Margaret Sanger, founder of what is now the organization Planned Parenthood. These concerns center on Sanger’s deplorable eugenic positions and racism. As the mother of a child with Down syndrome; as someone who has advocated again and again for the value of every human life; as someone who has curated series about abortion, prenatal testing, and racial reconciliation in the church—I care deeply about rooting out any eugenic tendencies in our current context. I care deeply about exposing and confessing racism and working together toward reconciliation.

So I pay attention when writers and Christians like Timothy Dalrymple offer this critique of the post (in the comments section):

I hope you can make this argument more powerfully and more effectively in future by not making it seem as though one must accept or pseudo-accept Sanger in order to agree.

Amy Julia Becker said she will continue her contraception conversation from those opposed and those in favor, but, I get the feeling she will leave Sanger out of that conversation- we shall see.